Hi there observer, not to worry because like Gs said you learn a lot with the debating, and I have been on debating teams and you have to get your point across or lose the dabate. Yes, between those you mentioned and bless his heart even while in depression, Christropher ooo is a fun guy also. You have a very blessed day, also.I already have

Dolores wrote:Great posts Jonn UK, better than I could have said it and you started my day off with a laugh and a "Merry heart that doth good like a medicine". So you have a blessed day and Gs also.

Hi Dolores

Good to see you back.

I apologise for being a little hard on you by challenging a statement that you made. I sense you are a gentle soul and still feeling your way about on doctrinal issues.

You will have guessed that I love people who can make a scriptural stand but have little patience for proof texters and those who refer to nothing but the writings of men as though they stand on a par with the Word of God.

I also love a good laugh and dear bros John UK and Mike NY provide the fun on these boards.

Observer wrote:You're jumping ahead Bro. Step back and leave aside assumptions for now. The question is how does the NT use the word for church.Re: Henry and Owen - Henry good devotionals, but being a Presby limp theology. Owen, on the whole better on doctrine, shame he got baptism wrong!Link is sorted now. Thanks for the headsup.

NT church - ekklesia. Yes, I quickly read the other article you posted, and it was all about "church" and its usage in the Bible.

Maybe this is why the debate has started up. What if we were to say there is an invisible "body of Christ" or an invisible "God's People" or simply the invisible "elect". Would that solve the riddle?

Is there another word we could use for1. Wheat2. Tares

if not the invisible church and the visible church?

p.s. In the example of Bongo Presbyterian Church, Chief Bongo Bongo was in the invisible church and the six million members were in the visible church.

Got your reposted link thanks, I will try to read it tonight, as it is much longer than Mr Schwertley.

John UK wrote:I never commented on my quote, did I? Besides, I'll turn to whomsoever I will, thank you very much. Notwithstanding, the issue is, that within the professing church, there is a mixture of saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate. No matter how closely we evaluate, the NT shows very clearly that it is not always possible to properly evaluate the spiritual state of others. There are plenty of good, moral, very religious people, who nonetheless are not born again of God's Spirit. And so, in the churches we attend or visit, it is unlikely that every person is a member of Christ's body (called the invisible church).See what I mean bro?And don't you ever look up Matthew Henry or John Owen? p.s. your link don't work bro, so if you'd like to repost it.

You're jumping ahead Bro. Step back and leave aside assumptions for now. The question is how does the NT use the word for church.

Re: Henry and Owen - Henry good devotionals, but being a Presby limp theology. Owen, on the whole better on doctrine, shame he got baptism wrong!

Observer wrote:Tut, tut Bro! I would have thought that you would know by now that if you want to know the truth of a matter, you do not turn to a Presby for an answer!

I never commented on my quote, did I?

Besides, I'll turn to whomsoever I will, thank you very much.

Notwithstanding, the issue is, that within the professing church, there is a mixture of saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate. No matter how closely we evaluate, the NT shows very clearly that it is not always possible to properly evaluate the spiritual state of others. There are plenty of good, moral, very religious people, who nonetheless are not born again of God's Spirit. And so, in the churches we attend or visit, it is unlikely that every person is a member of Christ's body (called the invisible church).

let us examine a few passages of Scripture that strongly support the traditional view of the church as visible and invisible:

a) 1 John 2:19-20: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things." In this passage John discusses certain persons who at one time had professed apostolic doctrine and were members of the church.

Note the Spirit-inspired analysis of the apostle John regarding this all too common situation. John says, "they were not of us." That is, they were never genuine members of the church. While it is true that they were baptized and professed the true religion, they were never united to Christ or saved. They were chaff on the same floor as wheat (Mt. 3:12), or tares among the wheat (Mt. 13:24-25). They were members of the visible church but never of the invisible church. In this context John uses the term "us" (emon) in the sense of true Christians.

No need to get worked up Delores, nobody agrees on everything. I actually like debates like these, because I've learned a lot from them. Sometimes it gets heated, but not too bad. Maybe I just misunderstood the term "invisible church." I wouldn't mind listening to the sermon SteveR posted if I can find the time. I agree that the church is invisible in as far as I can't see all of Gods saints at this moment, or walking through a crowd of people like John UK pointed out. However on a personal, interactive level, it should be quite obvious who is truly saved, by judging their fruits (personal conduct, speech, adherence to either sound or heretical doctrine, etc ). I would think most of the time, just by talking to someone, or seeing the way they live their life, you could tell whose saved or not. Hope that makes sense.

Just erase what I said about an invisible Church. It's not that important anyway that anyone believes that but me. I am not asking anyone else to believe what I believe.John UK, really love that smiley face with the big teeth, makes me laugh ever time.

SteveR wrote:...Tell you what,.... you go ahead and look up the WCF discussions and prooftexts cited for the Invisible Church. You pick the two top Scripture references you disagree with and we will discuss them when I return tomorrow

Nice try. Why in heaven do you suppose i would want to interact with that grossly erroneous document?

As for your offer, having experienced your lamentable debating skills last time I was here, I'll pass. Also, it would be a waste to time to argue with an unconverted Chimera church member like you. Like casting pearls before swine.

But since you are so keen to prove your mental prowess, go knock yourself out. Expound the clearest biblical evidence you think you have for the "invisible church" and I will post my refutations so that the readers can judge who has a better handle on the Word of God. Avoid proof texting and keep to biblical texts.

Observer wrote:More blah blah blah..Still not a verse of Scripture!!Sola Scriptura is dead for the Presbys and adherents of the Chimera church. Thank God it is alive in Baptist circles!

My goal was to provide resources for Christians on this message board to understand what Reformed Christians mean when they use the term 'Invisible Church,' not to convince you that its true. Space limitations also prohibit the discussions of all the proof texts used in just the Westminster Confession alone.

Tell you what, even though it would be easier to teach a bulldog to play the piano, you go ahead and look up the WCF discussions and prooftexts cited for the Invisible Church. You pick the two top Scripture references you disagree with and we will discuss them when I return tomorrow

SteveR wrote:Sorry to stick a pin in yet another one of your deceitful accusations, but the concept of the 'invisible church' in the Reformed tradition is a prooftext against the popes leadership of the ChurchThe Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25 .Chapter 25 Of the Church1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.a....6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o

More blah blah blah..

Still not a verse of Scripture!!

Sola Scriptura is dead for the Presbys and adherents of the Chimera church. Thank God it is alive in Baptist circles!

SteveR wrote:Sorry to stick a pin in yet another one of your deceitful accusations, but the concept of the 'invisible church' in the Reformed tradition is a prooftext against the popes leadership of the Church

You don't need a prooftext. An unregenerate cannot lead any church.

But I don't know why you're grumbling at me anyway, as I've never argued against an invisible church. The entire church is invisible to me at the moment - except me, of course.

John UK wrote:Accusing the brethren again Steve? Maybe the tip of your Jesuit flag showing?

Sorry to stick a pin in yet another one of your deceitful accusations, but the concept of the 'invisible church' in the Reformed tradition is a prooftext against the popes leadership of the Church

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25 .

Chapter 25 Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.a....6. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.n Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof.o

SteveR wrote:Observer,I see from several threads you despise higher learning for Pastors, and I understand that. If I shared all your heresies and misunderstandings of Scripture, I too wouldnt want a learned and faithful man as a Pastor. However, I am a faithful man that enjoys sharing the faith of my Reformed Fathers. They didnt just pull this idea out of the air when it became part of their writings, the concept of the 'invisible church' has been around since at least the 4th Century.Why? Because Scripture testifies to this truth. Just as the word 'Trinity' isnt in the Scripture, the TRUTH of the Trinity is found throughout Scripture. If you are afraid of an education that will let you understand the writings of faithful men, thats fine. Stick your head in the sand and leave it there, BUT dont encourage other Christians to follow in your wicked ways.

Chimera professor, your religion stinks to high heaven. Your welcome to your education, because it explains the paucity of your biblical knowledge, and the hatred that you display towards the Lord's true children!

Observer wrote:Yeah! If you can't find it in the Bible, you can trust a Presby to teach it!

Observer,I see from several threads you despise higher learning for Pastors, and I understand that. If I shared all your heresies and misunderstandings of Scripture, I too wouldnt want a learned and faithful man as a Pastor. However, I am a faithful man that enjoys sharing the faith of my Reformed Fathers. They didnt just pull this idea out of the air when it became part of their writings, the concept of the 'invisible church' has been around since at least the 4th Century.

Why? Because Scripture testifies to this truth. Just as the word 'Trinity' isnt in the Scripture, the TRUTH of the Trinity is found throughout Scripture.

If you are afraid of an education that will let you understand the writings of faithful men, thats fine. Stick your head in the sand and leave it there, BUT dont encourage other Christians to follow in your wicked ways.